RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant has made an application for allotment of land in question way -back in 1979 which has been allotted to another applicant, who has also moved an application around the same time. The appellant -petitioner has sought allotment as sub -tenant of one Nathu, who sought to step into his shoes for permanent allotment as a sub -tenant. All the Revenue Courts as well as learned Single Judge has found that since the petitioner was claiming derivative right to move an application for allotment of land on permanent basis from Nathu, who was a former Ghair Dhakhilkari under the Allotment of Government Land to Ghair Dhakhildar Tenants in 45 Areas Conditions, 1970 (for short 'Conditions of 1970') and there is no evidence that said Nathu ever made requisite application for such allotment after land vested in terms of conditions of 1970.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has found that since Nathu has not made any application for permanent allotment of land, therefore, he himself had no right to secure permanent allotment of the land earlier held by him under the Conditions of 1970. Hence, no right could accrue to the petitioner and therefore, the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authorities were upheld. In coming to the conclusion, no error appears to have been committed.;